Touching the Unclean
My annual meeting with the district board of credentials is coming up very quickly, so I made sure to look at the list of possible questions the Tennessee District asked us to be prepared to answer. It should come as no surprise that two of the questions are: 1)What is entire sanctification? and 2)What does it mean to be a Nazarene? As I began to work through how I will answer these questions in front of the board, the various issues at play in my life at the moment led me to begin thinking: Is is possible that as Nazarenes we have a very limited understanding of entire sanctification? In other words, if we are honest about how we play out this doctrine would be more accurate to call our beloved doctrine "limited sanctification"? Here's what I mean:
Last year at my district credentials meeting I was asked what I thought the manual means when it says that as pastors we are to have a "christian ethic." My response, in short, was that I think we too often define this by what we don't do, rather than the things we actually do. Generic answer to be sure, but truthful none the less, particularly, I think, in the context of the Church of the Nazarene and entire sanctification. It has been my experience that by and large the general consensus understanding of entire sanctification, at least among most laity and many pastors, is that is about "me" and what "I" don't do, or sometimes do, in order to be set apart.
As I have been wrestling with just how to answer this year's credentials questions I have begun to wonder: If that is all sanctification is, then is it really entire? In other words, if sanctification is meant to be entire, then shouldn't it extend beyond ourselves?
If we were to do an honest examination of our doctrine, or at least its popular understanding, I think that we would be forced to recognize that our understanding of sanctification, or holiness, tends to be confined almost exclusively to the Levitical holiness code. For the people of Israel holiness was achieved by not touching diseased skin, keeping away from corpses, doing nothing on the Sabbath, and eating the right food. For the people called Nazarene our holiness very often falls along these same lines: no dancing, no movies, no drinking, and make sure you wear a tie on Sunday. It would seem, that we forget that the holiness practiced by Jesus was, to say the least, a bit different.
Fundamentally, to be holy in Israel meant to be spiritually clean, and any contact with anything unclean, whether that be an object or an action, made one unclean. Then Jesus comes along as the cleanest of the clean, the holiest of the holy, and turns this notion upside down. He seeks about the unclean things of the world (leapers, prostitutes, tax collectors, dead bodies), reaches out and does the unthinkable: he touches them. However, rather than becoming unclean himself, those things which his holiness comes in contact with in turn become clean themselves.
I think that this is an incredibly important idea that as a holiness people we tragically too often forget. We define ourselves by the via negativa and scream out in protest if something or someone or especially some way of doing the faith enters our doors. Is it possible, that it in the embracing of the unclean, even, or perhaps especially if, it reeks of the "pagan", it is made clean through the grace of God and reconciled back to its Creator and His purposes? Is it not fundamental to our beloved doctrine that in order for it to truly be "entire" it must extend beyond ourselves and out to the rest of creation? In other words, isn't God's sanctifying work meant to encompass EVERYTHING and EVERYONE? And if it does not, if we keep it to ourselves, then does this gift of sanctification not lose both its grace and it's holiness? Such a self centered understanding of sanctification surely cannot called either "entire" or "holy."
As a sanctified people don't we need recognize that in being "called unto holiness" we are called, like Jesus, to extend that holiness, that grace, to the unclean?
Last year at my district credentials meeting I was asked what I thought the manual means when it says that as pastors we are to have a "christian ethic." My response, in short, was that I think we too often define this by what we don't do, rather than the things we actually do. Generic answer to be sure, but truthful none the less, particularly, I think, in the context of the Church of the Nazarene and entire sanctification. It has been my experience that by and large the general consensus understanding of entire sanctification, at least among most laity and many pastors, is that is about "me" and what "I" don't do, or sometimes do, in order to be set apart.
As I have been wrestling with just how to answer this year's credentials questions I have begun to wonder: If that is all sanctification is, then is it really entire? In other words, if sanctification is meant to be entire, then shouldn't it extend beyond ourselves?
If we were to do an honest examination of our doctrine, or at least its popular understanding, I think that we would be forced to recognize that our understanding of sanctification, or holiness, tends to be confined almost exclusively to the Levitical holiness code. For the people of Israel holiness was achieved by not touching diseased skin, keeping away from corpses, doing nothing on the Sabbath, and eating the right food. For the people called Nazarene our holiness very often falls along these same lines: no dancing, no movies, no drinking, and make sure you wear a tie on Sunday. It would seem, that we forget that the holiness practiced by Jesus was, to say the least, a bit different.
Fundamentally, to be holy in Israel meant to be spiritually clean, and any contact with anything unclean, whether that be an object or an action, made one unclean. Then Jesus comes along as the cleanest of the clean, the holiest of the holy, and turns this notion upside down. He seeks about the unclean things of the world (leapers, prostitutes, tax collectors, dead bodies), reaches out and does the unthinkable: he touches them. However, rather than becoming unclean himself, those things which his holiness comes in contact with in turn become clean themselves.
I think that this is an incredibly important idea that as a holiness people we tragically too often forget. We define ourselves by the via negativa and scream out in protest if something or someone or especially some way of doing the faith enters our doors. Is it possible, that it in the embracing of the unclean, even, or perhaps especially if, it reeks of the "pagan", it is made clean through the grace of God and reconciled back to its Creator and His purposes? Is it not fundamental to our beloved doctrine that in order for it to truly be "entire" it must extend beyond ourselves and out to the rest of creation? In other words, isn't God's sanctifying work meant to encompass EVERYTHING and EVERYONE? And if it does not, if we keep it to ourselves, then does this gift of sanctification not lose both its grace and it's holiness? Such a self centered understanding of sanctification surely cannot called either "entire" or "holy."
As a sanctified people don't we need recognize that in being "called unto holiness" we are called, like Jesus, to extend that holiness, that grace, to the unclean?
posted by Zack | 2:23 PM
9 Comments:
Very nice piece, Zach.
In the 4th paragraph, I found myself saying: "Well, it depends on what Nazarene church you're at or to whom you're listening."
Those who "get it" realize that entire sanctification is about what the Lord does through us rather than what we do or don't do. We have one choice - to allow Christ to work more and more fully through us.
I preach holiness, but it is infused with the message of grace as opposed to the legalism that still corrupts the church.
True, Zack. The "limited" sanctification that you are speaking of also sometimes leads to that partially sanctified person using their "sanctification" as a form of eternal security. Many times in my life I have heard a person testify and say, "I'm saved and sanctified" yet then I would see that person truly not bearing the fruits of the Spirit (or anything else holy). It seemed they thought they could live how they wanted since they were sanctified. As a young Christian I would think, "is that truly what sanctification is?" I thank God that He did put fully sanctified people in my life so I could see the truth of the doctrine.
Somewhere is a description of this blog that states your purpose as an effort to "re-educate" your "tribe" (?) about what they already believe. In reality, this reads as nothing more than a, mostly, feeble attempt to convince readers how enlightened you are. This is reflected in Mr. Collins comment about those who "get it". My experience in the Nazarene church is that any emphasis on the don'ts disappeared, for better and worse, a long time ago.
I am guessing that you consider yourself an emergent. That is not said as an accusation. There are elements of the EC that I embrace, and some that I don't. The one element that most amuses me about emergents is the insufferable sense of superiority - "we get it, you don't". This particular post sums it up.
Wow, Anomynous... you are really taking some leaps there.
Anonymous,
Like you there are some "emergent" things that I embrace and some that I do not. I think many of the contributors to this blog would, based on some of my previous posts, probably find it pretty ironic that you labeled me "emergent".
Regardless, I understand your frustration with an attitude of "we're the only ones that get it." The idea that one a very small group of people has sole ownership of "the truth" bothers me as well. However, that is not what I am implying, nor am I quite sure how what I wrote was full of, in your words, an "insufferable sense of arrogance."
What I wrote was no different then a sermon that I, or some other pastor, might preach on a Sunday morning. Reminding the people of God who we are called to be isn't an act of elitism, its simply part of the ongoing process of working out exactly what it means to be the people of God.
Zack: for what it's worth, I wholly affirm your words, which resonate deeply with me (another Nazarene brother who often, inexplicably, gets labeled "emergent" for reasons that are not quite clear to me). I didn't sense even a hint of arrogance or pretentiousness in your post. I sense that "Anonymous"s comment was more strongly reacting to Scott's comment, although of course those of us who know each other though this blog know that that accusation is no more true of Scott than it is of you. If Anonymous would hang around awhile (and of course with this blog as "dormant" as it has been, I don't know how attractively that invitation is, but you ARE invited!), I'm sure she or he would realize that, no matter how opinionated we are, or passionate about the church and our common life, we make no claims to enlightenment or superiority.
Thanks for the post Zack, hopefully the dormancy of this blog will not return (at least for as long as it has) in the near future.
One thing I find interesting about the discussions around the concept of entire sanctification is how easy the board of ministry/board of credentials finds it to ask the question: 'Are you entirely sanctified? Yes or No' when the majority of licensed and even ordained ministers that I know struggle deeply with answering that question.
In addition, for a denomination who are quick to seek John Wesley as spiritual and theological guide, we easily forget that he never claimed to be entirely sanctified himself, nor did he say that it was necessary for ministry. What he did say, however, is that we, the Christian community, can witness those who are holy amongst us (on rare occasion), like you were saying, anonymous.
Maybe having that stature on this issue would relieve the 'individualistic' slant we have inherited from our holiness roots. Maybe if we find sanctification in the community, as Zack suggests, rather than relying on our own selves as examples, we can see the work of God in others, which can in turn be manifest in our own lives.
In addition, it seems that the question of 'What does it mean to be a Nazarene?' needs to be a question that embraces a variety of answers. No church is perfect, and no church has all the answers. Therefore, we SHOULD be asking that question, not seeking a rote answer, but searching for the meaning of what it means to be Christian. Our Nazarene virtue (if I may call it that) should only be expressed out of our Christian virtue. Those who are a part of the Body of Christ seek to continue the work of our Head until He returns. This must include re-evaluating ourselves in community as we are building the Kingdom and being transformed into His Image.
I could be wrong, but I think Zack 'touches' a good point. Jesus was set apart, he was holy. This did not keep AWAY FROM those who were unholy, but it COMPELLED him to touch the unclean and to see the unholy around him be transformed.
I hope your meeting goes well Zack. I pray the board is willing to listen to a growing Christian rather than looking for one who has all the right answers.
Keep preaching Scott!
Congrats again on the submission Brannon!
Joseph
I view sanctification as dying to self... when you truly let God live through you. It's not something that stays bottled-up inside. It spreads like wildfire, affecting all those in your presence.
PS. Why do people anonymously comment in such negative fashion? Are they ashamed of their viewpoint?
Thanks, Jach. As a lapsed Nazarene, I am happy to read that you struggle with things such as "entire sanctification." I remember a very moving sermon by Rubin Welch more than 30 years ago in which he talked about how much he struggled with this doctrine, and yet, with tears running down his face, he said, "It's something we all want, don't we?"
Yes, I do. But I had to hang out with the Buddhists, a Catholic mystic,and the 12 Steppers to understand the daily surrender required.
Post a Comment
<< Home